Traffic Ticket

[BenderHockey 127]

That is all correct. The citation IS evidence, and the citing officer does not NEED to be present, but should be to testify should it go to trial. I agree with that, but that paragraph is misleading. It is designed to make you believe that if they have the citation, you're screwed. Again, the officer is the accuser, not the citation, and the 6th amendment still applies. The DA/Prosecution is in the business of winning cases and generating income, not making sure you know how to beat your case.

This information is directly from a trial attorney.

[chippa13 1844]

Tell you what, get yourself a ticket in Massachusetts and then when only a representative shows up and you're still found guilty, then you can launch your constitutional crusade. Let me know how that works out.

[gxc999 7]

  Traffic law varies widely from state to state because it's all state law. If you really care that much, find a local attorney. Oh, and good luck mounting a constitutional challenge in traffic court over an ordinary ticket. The judge will laugh at you and order you to pay the damn fine.    

[BenderHockey 127]

Well, that's what appeals courts are for. Silly me for wanting to launch a "crusade" to protect my rights, and the rights of others.

[eric42434224 1]

Well, that's what appeals courts are for. Silly me for wanting to launch a "crusade" to protect my rights, and the rights of others.

If you were so concerned about the rights (and safety) of others, you would have obeyed the traffic laws in the first place....and if you were so concerned with fairness and justice in our system, you would have admitted your offense and paid the appropriate penalty. If you truly feel that the ticket is not warranted, the fighting it is what you should do.

Weaseling out of a fine is one thing, but IMO to do so while shouting about "rights" and fairness in the justice system comes across as more than a bit hypocritical.

[Chadd 916]

If you were so concerned about the rights (and safety) of others, you would have obeyed the traffic laws in the first place

Everyone knows their "rights", far fewer know their responsibilities.

[Jason Harris 31]

There's some validity to what you say, Eric, but I've read articles that traffic planners take into account that people will nearly always exceed the speed limits by up to 10 MPH. So if they feel that a road can safely handle speeds of 65 MPH, they will set the speed limit at 55 MPH. The illegality doesn't change, of course, but the safety is not as questionable as it appears on the surface (with the understanding that one could argue that every 1 MPH increase -- even legal -- could have a detrimental affect on safety).

In a similar situation to BenderHockey's original post, the Big D made the same maneuver that was absolutely safe and absolutely illegal. There was a road near our house that was in between a residential area and retail; it had playing fields about 75 yards away, meaning it was basically a low-traffic portion of the road. Another road teed into it, creating a three-way stop. The Big D came to a stop behind the car at the stop sign. Then, instead of coming to a second stop one-and-a-half seconds later at the stop sign, she rolled through the stop sign at about 4 MPH -- something that probably happens dozens of times a day at similar intersections. The policeman happened to be a few cars up on the road that teed in. There's no denying it was illegal, just as there's no denying it wasn't unsafe, considering no other cars or pedestrians were within one hundred yards.

Given all that, I believe BenderHockey should contest the fine as being perfectly legal and deserved, but as being excessive in its penalty. Actually, the more I think about it, if we were stuck having to face a $446 fine for the exact scenario I described above, you better believe we would have made multiple trips to the court purely out of principle. (Accepting punishment is one thing; accepting an excessive punishment is altogether different.) However, Colorado has done a smart thing in terms of pricing their tickets. Pay in advance and the fine is maybe half as many points on the driver's record, plus about a 1/3 reduction of fine. Take your chance going to court and you'll either have it wiped from your record or lose and receive the full penalty. In our case, $69 was worth not taking a day off from work and not having it affect insurance rates, even if it appeared the incident should only have warranted a warning from the policeman that that intersection can be problematic at times. (I skate with police and fireman, and I know they agree with me that there are times to issue tickets, and there are times to be discretionary and issue warnings.)

[furlanitalia 1]

There's some validity to what you say, Eric, but I've read articles that traffic planners take into account that people will nearly always exceed the speed limits by up to 10 MPH. So if they feel that a road can safely handle speeds of 65 MPH, they will set the speed limit at 55 MPH. The illegality doesn't change, of course, but the safety is not as questionable as it appears on the surface (with the understanding that one could argue that every 1 MPH increase -- even legal -- could have a detrimental affect on safety).

Funny thing about that fact - my first accident came while driving our 16 yr old truck in the rain. Tires were a little slicked and worn down, and the steering had just been worked on. Anyway, going around a soft corner doing the speed limit the steering locked up on my and I hit a tree. I had minimal injuries and some emergency crews showed up including a cop. I was issued a $200 ticket because even though I was going the limit, I should have factored the rain and slowed down. No one witnessed the crash, and tow truck driver said that there was nothing I could have done because the steering was gone, but I still got a ticket for driving what the limit was.

[BenderHockey 127]

If you were so concerned about the rights (and safety) of others, you would have obeyed the traffic laws in the first place....and if you were so concerned with fairness and justice in our system, you would have admitted your offense and paid the appropriate penalty. If you truly feel that the ticket is not warranted, the fighting it is what you should do.

Weaseling out of a fine is one thing, but IMO to do so while shouting about "rights" and fairness in the justice system comes across as more than a bit hypocritical.

You do understand that I am not the one who received the ticket, correct?

[eric42434224 1]

You do understand that I am not the one who received the ticket, correct?

Ah yes. That is true. But the essence of the statement still applies as you advocate the OP to fight the ticket, even though he admits fault, in order to get out on a technicality.

You say that "they" have to prove you guilty. Yet if you were speeding, or you did roll a stop sign, you are indeed guilty. That fact, coupled with a respect for the law, should be enough to accept the responsibility for your actions. Someone who automatically fights a ticket, even though they fully know thet did commit the offence, is merely weaseling out of it. Sounds like that is exactly what you advocate. Am I not correct?

If I was clocked going 70 in a 50, and was aware of it, doesnt that make me guilty? You would advocate I go to court to fight something that I know is correct, just to hope for a technicality? That isnt protecting your rights...that is weaseling out of it....and shows no respect for the law, and no personal responsibility. Going to court to explain yourself in hopes for reduced fine/punishment/points etc is perfectly fine....but it doesnt seem that is your suggested plan of action.

[Chadd 916]

Funny thing about that fact - my first accident came while driving our 16 yr old truck in the rain. Tires were a little slicked and worn down, and the steering had just been worked on. Anyway, going around a soft corner doing the speed limit the steering locked up on my and I hit a tree. I had minimal injuries and some emergency crews showed up including a cop. I was issued a $200 ticket because even though I was going the limit, I should have factored the rain and slowed down. No one witnessed the crash, and tow truck driver said that there was nothing I could have done because the steering was gone, but I still got a ticket for driving what the limit was.

If you can prove a mechanical failure, the ticket will be rescinded in most cases. Unfortunately it will cost more to prove the cause than the cost of the ticket. In PA the term for your ticket would be "driving too fast for the conditions." Just like the people here that drive 65 on the highway when it is covered with ice and snow in their SUV, they were at or below the posted limit but driving at a speed that was beyond their ability to control.

[gxc999 7]

 The more I read this, the more sorry I feel for my friends and colleagues who end up doing DUI law. You can actually make good money in it, but man, it must suck. One more thing, just to echo what Chadd said, since any challenge you can mount will cost more than paying the ticket itself, the law is very aware that it can set unfair rates. Some counties, generally smaller cities and tiny towns, have passed laws that only x percent of their revenue can come from tickets, great idea in my mind.

As for a possible constitutional (US) challenge itself to the large fine, if you had a wealthy benefactor and appealed it to a higher level, $500 for a rolling stop or whatever very minor infraction could likely be challenged under substantive due process grounds more successfully than the 8th amendment Cruel and Unusual Clause. In appealing the case to the circuit court, an attorney would have to write some damn fine stuff to get the appellate court to seriously consider wasting it's time on a traffic ticket. Appellate courts are always seriously overworked as it is, so they're indifferent about traffic tickets and what they deem to be miscellaneous piddly shit.

[furlanitalia 1]

If you can prove a mechanical failure, the ticket will be rescinded in most cases. Unfortunately it will cost more to prove the cause than the cost of the ticket. In PA the term for your ticket would be "driving too fast for the conditions." Just like the people here that drive 65 on the highway when it is covered with ice and snow in their SUV, they were at or below the posted limit but driving at a speed that was beyond their ability to control.

True. I ended up paying it because my first court date was scheduled the same day as a provincial exam and they rescheduled it when we were out of town. They refused to reschedule it after that. Again, I can understand people driving outside of their ability to control, but with no witness and only speculation I was shocked to be receiving a ticket. The cop was probably lucky that I was out of it and being looked after by paramedic staff or I would have lost it right there. Probably lucky for me too as I would've just gotten myself in more trouble. Either way it was a dick thing to do. "Look, I know you just totaled your vehicle, you hand is swollen/broken because it went through the dash and you've fractured a couple ribs but here's a ticket. Because, you clearly won't learn anything from this unless I give you a ticket"

[BenderHockey 127]

Ah yes. That is true. But the essence of the statement still applies as you advocate the OP to fight the ticket, even though he admits fault, in order to get out on a technicality.

You say that "they" have to prove you guilty. Yet if you were speeding, or you did roll a stop sign, you are indeed guilty. That fact, coupled with a respect for the law, should be enough to accept the responsibility for your actions. Someone who automatically fights a ticket, even though they fully know thet did commit the offence, is merely weaseling out of it. Sounds like that is exactly what you advocate. Am I not correct?

If I was clocked going 70 in a 50, and was aware of it, doesnt that make me guilty? You would advocate I go to court to fight something that I know is correct, just to hope for a technicality? That isnt protecting your rights...that is weaseling out of it....and shows no respect for the law, and no personal responsibility. Going to court to explain yourself in hopes for reduced fine/punishment/points etc is perfectly fine....but it doesnt seem that is your suggested plan of action.

I'm not advocating anyone try to "weasel" out of anything. A trial is a trial, be it for a minor traffic instance, theft, or even assault/murder. The same rules apply. The prosection must prove you guilty and follow certain steps to do so. It is one's right to take it to trial and have those rules applied.

So by your argument, anyone who hires a lawyer and goes to trial for something they were charged for is "trying to weasel out of it"? If you were clocked going 70 in a 50 and were aware of it, YES, that does make you guilty. But it's the DA's job to PROVE it.

Every one of us here has broken the law to some extent, even if it is only slightly speeding. To get on a high horse and talk about respecting law is quite silly. Glass houses??

[eric42434224 1]

I'm not advocating anyone try to "weasel" out of anything. A trial is a trial, be it for a minor traffic instance, theft, or even assault/murder. The same rules apply. The prosection must prove you guilty and follow certain steps to do so. It is one's right to take it to trial and have those rules applied.

So by your argument, anyone who hires a lawyer and goes to trial for something they were charged for is "trying to weasel out of it"? If you were clocked going 70 in a 50 and were aware of it, YES, that does make you guilty. But it's the DA's job to PROVE it.

Every one of us here has broken the law to some extent, even if it is only slightly speeding. To get on a high horse and talk about respecting law is quite silly. Glass houses??

I never said I dont break the law, but when I do, it is out of ignorance or I am just unaware, I do not automatically fight it in court and hope to get off on a technicality. I accept responsibility for my actions, and if in the wrong, pay the penalty....whatever the type of offense. If there is something in the offense or report that I do not agree with, I will use the process to rectify that.

And to compare traffic violations to murder is a bit dramatic....but yes, the same rules apply in a trial...but in the end, if you did it, and are looking for an aquittal, you are still trying to avoid a punishment you deserve. Cant deny the plain logic in that. I do advocate using the system/process/trial to make sure the punishment is just and fair though.

So no high horses or glass houses here.....just respect for the law, aknowledgement for personal responsibility, and no abuse of a system set up to protect rights in order to weasel out of a ticket. Just because it is your right, does not mean you have to excercise it. There are a plethora of examples where it is not morally correct to excercise a right. I guess I am just a different type of person than you in that respect.

[chippa13 1844]

I'm not advocating anyone try to "weasel" out of anything. A trial is a trial, be it for a minor traffic instance, theft, or even assault/murder. The same rules apply. The prosection must prove you guilty and follow certain steps to do so. It is one's right to take it to trial and have those rules applied.

So by your argument, anyone who hires a lawyer and goes to trial for something they were charged for is "trying to weasel out of it"? If you were clocked going 70 in a 50 and were aware of it, YES, that does make you guilty. But it's the DA's job to PROVE it.

Every one of us here has broken the law to some extent, even if it is only slightly speeding. To get on a high horse and talk about respecting law is quite silly. Glass houses??

No, anyone who goes to trial for something they are guilty of is "trying to weasel out of it".

[BenderHockey 127]

So no high horses or glass houses here.....just respect for the law, aknowledgement for personal responsibility, and no abuse of a system set up to protect rights in order to weasel out of a ticket. Just because it is your right, does not mean you have to excercise it. There are a plethora of examples where it is not morally correct to excercise a right. I guess I am just a different type of person than you in that respect.

Way to assume. I never advocated someone trying to get out of a ticket on a technicality. My posts on this topic have been only in response to Chippa saying that in Massachusetts a police representative can properly substitute for the officer who wrote the ticket during a trial. While that may fly with some people, I was only voicing my opinion that the 6th amendment should hold firm in that instance, not that the OP should try to weasel out of anything.

That being said, let's try to get this threat back on the correct path.

[eric42434224 1]

Way to assume. I never advocated someone trying to get out of a ticket on a technicality. My posts on this topic have been only in response to Chippa saying that in Massachusetts a police representative can properly substitute for the officer who wrote the ticket during a trial. While that may fly with some people, I was only voicing my opinion that the 6th amendment should hold firm in that instance, not that the OP should try to weasel out of anything.

Bender, I made the assumption because you posted this:

Always contest it. Remeber, you aren't guilty automatically. They have to PROVE you guilty.

This seems very clear to me that you always advocate fighting the ticket through the court system, regardless of guilt.

And this post was well before Chippas post regarding the subsitution reps in MA...third post in the thread actually.

[shotty 7]

No, anyone who goes to trial for something they are guilty of is "trying to weasel out of it".

attempting to lessen the punishment is not weaseling out.

if you're charged/accused (thanks eric) of 1st degree murder, and you plead not guilty, even though you DID murder someone, are you "weaseling out"?

in staying with the topic at hand, the OP admits to a rolling stop, but disagrees with the punishment. just like in murder trials, there's room for negotiation in punishment. why should he be forced to pay the maximum fine for this offense when he claims it wasn't malicious nor blatant? its not like he has a documented history of rolling through stop signs.

[eric42434224 1]

attempting to lessen the punishment is not weaseling out.

I agree.

if you're ACCUSED of 1st degree murder, and you plead not guilty, even though you DID murder someone, are you "weaseling out"?

Fixed. And Yes.

in staying with the topic at hand, the OP admits to a rolling stop, but disagrees with the punishment. just like in murder trials, there's room for negotiation in punishment. why should he be forced to pay the maximum fine for this offense when he claims it wasn't malicious nor blatant? its not like he has a documented history of rolling through stop signs.

Going through the court system to negotiate punishment is very different than trying to get out of it all together.

I definitely think it is a good idea to go to court to challenge the facts of the case if you are in disagreement, or if there are special circumstances, and even if there are issues with the penalty.....NOT to get it thrown out on a technicality.

[BenderHockey 127]

Does anyone know if it is possible to contest a traffic ticket on the grounds that the fine is excessive and unreasonable?

I got stopped for a "rolling stop" through a stop sign and the fine is $446, which to me seems excessive. Originally I wasn't going to contest it, but given the size of the fine for something so minor I feel like I have to.

Bender, I made the assumption because you posted this:

This seems very clear to me that you always advocate fighting the ticket through the court system, regardless of guilt.

And this post was well before Chippas post regarding the subsitution reps in MA...third post in the thread actually.

Yes, the part I highlighted was where I indicated I believed he could contest it.

[Chadd 916]

I guess this is the only way to stop this from going on forever.